It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Low income people should not have insurance. They should be treated for free.

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Only thing is, if you give poor people free health care they will have more poor babies they can't afford. Then what? Treat them until they start having babies?

I'm not sure that I would care for that as a taxpayer.




posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Medicine is ALREADY broken... and Higher Education is on the verge of total massive disruption... and you want to use THAT model for doctors?

After working for 38 years in Academic sales... I can assure you, government/tenured employment models have destroyed Higher Education as a going venture.

Within 10 years... there will be massive reform, or a HUGE percentage of Colleges and Universities will be closing their doors... and the ones that stay open WILL have to change their policies, or no one will even bother with them any more.

Unless their is reasonable reform... in medicine, and in academia... there will be only 2 classes in the U.S.

The Elites and the peasant class. Oddly, not unlike The Hunger Games



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

The money would come from federal taxes, without the need to raise them & by using the same or similar tax brackets as we have now. If we eliminate the Department of Education, Medicare, Student financial aid, Veteran benefits, welfare, etc. & transformed Social Security, this would give us enough money to give every citizen who is over 18 years old, makes less than $50k per year & has a net worth of less than $300k be eligible to receive @ $30k per year national wage. This money could then be used in the free market for basic needs which the old social programs use to provide, without the government/corporate middle men. If this were implemented there would be no need for a minimum wage, people could pay for their own healthcare & education in the free market. It could also bring down crime levels, since no citizen would have an income less than $30k per year. Also, poorer people would not have an incentive to have more kids in order to receive governmnet benefits. Kids would benefit more by having a 2 parent household, which would receive @ $60k per year ($30k for each parent). The less children they have the more money they can keep for themselves. This might help restore traditional family values.

If a national wage were to be implemented I would like to see it with a federal tax percentage cap. Let's say no more than 30 to 35% percent for high earners & 20 to 25% for mid-level earners. Also, some restrictions might have to be put in place like deductions from ones future national wages, if one has not payed for health insurance & has outstanding medical bills.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
It looks at previous year tax return. If you go from a job paying 40 dollars an hour to 16 dollars an hour because you choose to stay in your home town when the plant moves overseas, it takes about two years to get Obamacare subsidies.

Nothing is free. Made this argument before. If health care is a right, then all doctors should be indentured servants to society and provide their skills for no cost to the sick.





edit on 27-6-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ

And everone should pay into the tax system. I really don't care if you think it's not fair. It should be a ten percent tax on everyone's income. Or get rid of income and property tax, and just go to a sales tax system.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: ElGoobero

actually money is meaningless, everything is free until you decide it has monetary value. This is how society is contained and how humanity is restricted. We are so greedy and self absorbed that we need money to govern us.
Nothing is free until a man acts selflessly for another. Nothing else had ever been free. Money is the solution to common value of things that already had value. One spent time and effort making this basket, another spent time and gambled health to collect wild honey. A jar of honey is worth two baskets to the weaver, so they trade. Time, energy, and risk (and perhaps more such as scarcity) are the true underlining currency. One cannot acquire a single thing without spending time, energy, and often risk. Money is just representative. If it didn't exist, then we would still have these same issues. Someone always pays. That's why nothing is free. Again, the only illusion of free stuff is a product of altruism, but it is an illusion nonetheless.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBIZZ
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

The money would come from federal taxes, without the need to raise them & by using the same or similar tax brackets as we have now. If we eliminate the Department of Education, Medicare, Student financial aid, Veteran benefits, welfare, etc. & transformed Social Security, this would give us enough money to give every citizen who is over 18 years old, makes less than $50k per year & has a net worth of less than $300k be eligible to receive @ $30k per year national wage. This money could then be used in the free market for basic needs which the old social programs use to provide, without the government/corporate middle men. If this were implemented there would be no need for a minimum wage, people could pay for their own healthcare & education in the free market. It could also bring down crime levels, since no citizen would have an income less than $30k per year. Also, poorer people would not have an incentive to have more kids in order to receive governmnet benefits. Kids would benefit more by having a 2 parent household, which would receive @ $60k per year ($30k for each parent). The less children they have the more money they can keep for themselves. This might help restore traditional family values.

If a national wage were to be implemented I would like to see it with a federal tax percentage cap. Let's say no more than 30 to 35% percent for high earners & 20 to 25% for mid-level earners. Also, some restrictions might have to be put in place like deductions from ones future national wages, if one has not payed for health insurance & has outstanding medical bills.


I can see having some of those removed. Medicare would no longer be needed, welfare would no longer be needed, but without the DoE who's going to run the schools? How will education be paid for without financial aid? No veteran benefits? Why would we eliminate those?

I like this idea to a point but details



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: JBIZZ

And everone should pay into the tax system. I really don't care if you think it's not fair. It should be a ten percent tax on everyone's income. Or get rid of income and property tax, and just go to a sales tax system.


I have often suggested this!!! 10% is doable for everyone... .10 if you only have $1 and of you have $1000 its $100 and so on... you get left with 90% and no one can complain because it's a completely fair system. The wealthy keep 90% so no tax breaks necessary! Simple n beautiful



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vortiki
Yes, lets all demand people that went to college for 8+ years to do thier job for free.
Unbelivable how selfish and greedy the majority of you are to demand that people who worked hard to become wealthy should have to foot the bill for lazy people who dont want to work as hard.
You say make the government pay them? Why? Government doesnt make money, it runs off tax payer dollars and my taxes are high enough.
You say make the rich pay for it? Why? Why should the rich be penalized because you cant afford something?
You say make the doctors work for free? Why? Would you work for free?
Heres an idea, when you get sick, pay to see a dr. End of story.
If you cant pay, you dont see the dr. It isnt the drs fault youre sick, it isnt the rich peoples fault your sick, they shouldnt be penalized for something that has nothing to do with them.


It's selfishness that has created the problem in the first place. Selfishness at the top. Not talking individuals here, but groups of individuals, that drive profit before everything else. Success is profit driven and that's a problem because there's more to life than profit.

Not every poor person is "lazy". Some people can't make ends meet and work 3 jobs or more. Just because one happens to be able to live comfortably on one income or one job doesn't mean that everyone else is lazy and doesn't work as hard.

There are lazy rich people and lazy poor people but one can't point the finger and accuse someone of something which one knows nothing about. If you've met one lazy poor person then you've met one... i've been on the bottom of the totem pole and i've seen with my own eyes how many homeless people there are who simply couldn't afford things and not due to drugs or laziness.

In TN i was living on the streets and in my car. Guess what? I had a job but i couldn't afford an apartment. I was in a homeless shelter there a few nights and met doctors and lawyers who were living in the shelter. What does that say about those people? What does that say about the economy at the time?

No one should work for free... the idea is ludicrous. What needs to happen is that the system is fixed so patients can afford treatment and doctors can afford education.


edit on 28-6-2017 by AkontaDarkpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw


Well, I would edit my post to reflect "/sarcasm"......but I'm not sure that's really sarcasm, but it's definitely mockery.


Which post are you referring to? I wasn't aware that i was sarcastic or mocking but that doesn't mean i wasn't....


No no. LOL. I was talking about my post. My post, perhaps should have been ended with "/sarcasm. But, I think my post was more "mockery" than "sarcasm".



Lol! I see



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vortiki
a reply to: seasonal

Other nations have very higher tax rates to compensate for healthcare. Thankfully we live in a capitalist country where i dont have to pay extra taxes because everyone else needs to see the dr 3 times a week.

Id much prefer to only pay my dr when i need to see them. I dont want to pay for anyone elses dr visits and i dont want anyone else paying for mine. I dont know why people have such a big issue with leaving things like that.


Capitalism is crap because everything is about profit. I don't like that idea at all. Capitalism is great in moderation... like a forest or a jungle it should be off in the distance a bit and not crowding out civilization. Currently its crowding out civilization in this country.

In an ideal world, that works but health insurance just like car insurance is/was helping to pay for the uninsured. That's the nature of insurance. Whether its from taxes or insurance rates, your money pays for others not just you.

I think expecting a more self reliant system would certainly be more ideal than what we have now.

Those who can't afford doctors shouldn't be expected to die because of their inability to pay (not that this is the case) nor should doctors give up their pay in order to treat everyone for free.

In my mind, everyone wants universal healthcare but either a) don't want to pay for it (tax hikes) or b) don't understand it has to be paid for.

I don't think universal healthcare will fly in the us. Capitalism rules supreme and too many people at the top with the attitude that those below them aren't their problem. Universal healthcare only works in countries that have learned to share.

Here in the US we're still in the "gimme gimme" mindset although perhaps this is a relatively new development as opposed to a continuation.
edit on 28-6-2017 by AkontaDarkpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

So you work with the goal to better society? Or because you and your family need provided for, food, warmth, and shelter. So individuals should be indentured servants to society for people not willing to provide for themselves?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux


So you work with the goal to better society? Or because you and your family need provided for, food, warmth, and shelter. So individuals should be indentured servants to society for people not willing to provide for themselves?



Both. Why should it be either or? Working should in some way contribute to the betterment of society while at the same time allowing you to provide for your family.

We're all indentured servants. If you have kids.. they don't work but you slave away for them anyway out of love for them.

Helping the less fortunate is built into every world religion and should be the hallmark of a decent human being. This doesn't mean that we should support laziness but rather come together when times are tough. Who knows when we will be the ones crushed under the wheel of fortune and someone we helped will repay the favor.

Doctors are no different. The price of healthcare as pointed out by others amounts to price gouging here in the states. Only military and maybe government workers are exempt from these practices.

Military insurance aka tricare (or whatever it's called now) is free on post because it comes out of the defense budget (or so i assume). Prescriptions, doctor visits, etc all free. Off post there may be a copay but it's negligible like $15 and prescriptions are generally not more than $10 and all this because the government dictates what they think the services provided are worth regardless of what the doctor wants to charge. The government won't pay more than they desire to.

Capitalism goes above and beyond what's warranted or needed. Equipment retails at way more than it costs to build - this is expected. Your average music CD costs .1 to create and sells for $15-20. Same with DVDs etc. The initial recording may cost $1500 to make and then add advertising fees which have to be recouped before actual profit is seen. This holds true for medical equipment but i don't have any examples for that. (Examples not necessarily factual)

Other countries have same equipment as US but their healthcare costs less because the medical industry model is different.

Here patients are not encouraged to seek alternative medicine, prevention, etc and doctors don't provide health information. All they do is push pills in many cases. They've been reduced to legal drug lords. This by the establishment not necessarily by choice. They offer bandaids not health solutions in cases that aren't emergencies. If you have pain, they'll give you drugs. Have an infection.. drugs. Have anxiety... drugs.

All of the above are likely curable by nutrition.. vitamins etc. No one hears of these options from doctors. Not all are nutritional deficiencies and not all pain can be solved with a drug but this lack of information creates a problem in care. Missing pieces that are affordable fixes.

I know people who suggest seeing a doctor for every runny nose and then obeys the doctor without question but i'm not one of them.

Imo, doctors shouldn't be seen unless you're dying, seriously ill, or severely injured.

Too many affordable remedies available to try before attempting to go to a doctor, though not everyone is aware of these remedies because alternative medicine is often ridiculed by the establishment as "quackery".

Back in the day doctors educated. They were seen on a regular basis and got to know their patients, now patients are just a number and doctors don't care. This probably due to burn out rather than a character flaw. See enough patients and i'm sure it's same ol' same ol'. This happens in any profession.

The goal here shouldn't be free healthcare or even universal healthcare. The US just isn't mature enough to handle universal healthcare, still too selfish and busy with profiteering for that.

The goal should be individual rights to healthcare through affordable medicine, affordable doctor visits, affordable individual choice insurance plans, affordable preventive medicine/health education
and affordable education for doctors.

Removing capitalism from healthcare should be the ultimate goal because that will eventually pave the way for universal healthcare when the US is mature enough to handle it and willing to follow the countries who have already perfected such a system.

edit on 28-6-2017 by AkontaDarkpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Each state can run the schools w/ lottery profits or people can choose to send their kids to private schools through the free market. The Department of Education wasn't enacted until 1979 & not established until 1980. Its not like we didn't have schools before the Department of Education was created. Student financial aid would no longer be needed because each person over 18 would receive $30k per year national wage & can choose to spend some of that in the free market on college education if they want. Most veteran benefits would also no longer be needed, since a $30k yearly national wage would cover what they received through veteran benefits.

A national wage could basically end the racketeering created by government/corporations & the people working in previous government social occupations could get real jobs which add to our nations production/innovation. It could also bring on real estate & market boom, since people will have money to spend. There would also be no need for everyone to live in a city bringing rejuvenation to rural areas economies.
edit on 28-6-2017 by JBIZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye


Well for you info the middle call is whats getting hit with high costs. And nothing is free as I am sure someone has said by now.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Only thing is, if you give poor people free health care they will have more poor babies they can't afford. Then what? Treat them until they start having babies?

I'm not sure that I would care for that as a taxpayer.




We need to ask why healthcare costs were driven to the point were even the middle class cant afford to many children. Its not like we are talking about affordable cost but 20grand per kid just to start these days. A child is a cash cow.
edit on 28-6-2017 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBIZZ
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Each state can run the schools w/ lottery profits or people can choose to send their kids to private schools through the free market. The Department of Education wasn't enacted until 1979 & not established until 1980. Its not like we didn't have schools before the Department of Education was created. Student financial aid would no longer be needed because each person over 18 would receive $30k per year national wage & can choose to spend some of that in the free market on college education if they want. Most veteran benefits would also no longer be needed, since a $30k yearly national wage would cover what they received through veteran benefits.

A national wage could basically end the racketeering created by government/corporations & the people working in previous government social occupations could get real jobs which add to our nations production/innovation. It could also bring on real estate & market boom, since people will have money to spend. There would also be no need for everyone to live in a city bringing rejuvenation to rural areas economies.


Makes sense to me...



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Only thing is, if you give poor people free health care they will have more poor babies they can't afford. Then what? Treat them until they start having babies?

I'm not sure that I would care for that as a taxpayer.




Wee need to ask why healthcare costs were driven to the point were even the middle class cant afford to many children. Its not like we are talking about affordable cost but 20grand per kid just to start these days. A child is a cash cow.


Depopulation by making it cost prohibitive... sure people still have kids but then in some states poverty is a reason for cps involvement.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: allsee4eye


Well for you info the middle call is whats getting hit with high costs. And nothing is free as I am sure someone has said by now.



True before long there won't be a middle class... welcome back to the Dark Ages.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: allsee4eye


Well for you info the middle call is whats getting hit with high costs. And nothing is free as I am sure someone has said by now.



True before long there won't be a middle class... welcome back to the Dark Ages.



Yea with the tug of war going with whos chump the middle is.....rich and poor pulling hard at each end. You socialist are no better than they are really.
edit on 28-6-2017 by Logarock because: n



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join